drazin
Member
Neopan1600 developed in Ilfosol s for 8 minutes
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
BTW, Alkis states that the more dramatic blacks of Neopan @ 1600 in D-76 1:1 (not as much shadow detail) provide a look he prefers ... I normally want more shadow detail, but in studying his work and other Neopan shot/processed differently, I'd have to say he has a point. I think I agree with him for the conditions of some of his shots. I.e., the dramatic, old school, film noir look in available darkness.
This is a really good thread with lots of great examples!
This is a really good thread with lots of great examples!
mr_phillip
Well-known
I'd say you should try to develop it yourself – unless you're using a really good specialist lab you should get more consitant (and certainly more tunable) results that way.
As everyone else has said, I don't actually think your shots look *that* grainy. Did you scan them from negs or from a print?
If you do decide to develop your next roll yourself, I'd suggest either DD-X or XTOL. Here are a couple of examples in the latter:
As everyone else has said, I don't actually think your shots look *that* grainy. Did you scan them from negs or from a print?
If you do decide to develop your next roll yourself, I'd suggest either DD-X or XTOL. Here are a couple of examples in the latter:
imush
Well-known
The scan was from negative.
Thanks for suggestions. I got myself the tank, changing bag and chemistry, will try DD-X or D-76 for this film next time there is an occasion that calls for Neopan 1600. So far I practiced on Tri-X/Tmax and APX100/Rodinal, those films need to be scanned yet, but negatives look promising to the naked eye.
Has anyone here tried Neopan 1600 in Tmax developer? Would result be similar to DD-X? I currently have bottles of Tmax and Rodinal open (Neopan in Rodinal is probably too exotic for beginner testing). The "massive dev chart", however, does not have entries for Neopan in Tmax at EI<1600, except one with nonstandard temperature.
Thanks for suggestions. I got myself the tank, changing bag and chemistry, will try DD-X or D-76 for this film next time there is an occasion that calls for Neopan 1600. So far I practiced on Tri-X/Tmax and APX100/Rodinal, those films need to be scanned yet, but negatives look promising to the naked eye.
Has anyone here tried Neopan 1600 in Tmax developer? Would result be similar to DD-X? I currently have bottles of Tmax and Rodinal open (Neopan in Rodinal is probably too exotic for beginner testing). The "massive dev chart", however, does not have entries for Neopan in Tmax at EI<1600, except one with nonstandard temperature.
palec
Well-known
Check this data-sheet, page 2:
http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDFs/fujifilm_neopan_1600.pdf
http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDFs/fujifilm_neopan_1600.pdf
imush
Well-known
palec said:
Been there, but they only list Tmax developer times for Neopan exposed at 1600 and 3200. No suggestion for slower exposure, so I take it as not a recommended combination. As it is, the listed time @1600 is 4.5min, anything less would be difficult to do consistently. Diluting Tmax further is not listed as an option (probably for a good reason).
So I'll try D-76 or DD-X next time.
palec
Well-known
DD-X develops NP1600 very fast, too. I think D-76 1:1 is the right choice.
imush
Well-known
For next Neopan roll, I had some open DD-X, so I tried it first:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0008.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0013.jpeg
Still looks rather dull. I think I overdeveloped (or did not expose well; the lighting was not good, small bright bare bulbs hanging over the heads of these people). Negatives look quite dark, and I had to increase the exposure on the scanner (Coolscan IV) to get these files.
It was not possible to expose any slower than at 1600.
Will try D-76 next time, since the dev time is longer and allows for more controlled variation. The dev chart only shows 30sec differences between stops (i.e. @800, @1600) in DD-X, which seem too small to achieve consistent results.
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0008.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0013.jpeg
Still looks rather dull. I think I overdeveloped (or did not expose well; the lighting was not good, small bright bare bulbs hanging over the heads of these people). Negatives look quite dark, and I had to increase the exposure on the scanner (Coolscan IV) to get these files.
It was not possible to expose any slower than at 1600.
Will try D-76 next time, since the dev time is longer and allows for more controlled variation. The dev chart only shows 30sec differences between stops (i.e. @800, @1600) in DD-X, which seem too small to achieve consistent results.
minoltist7
pussy photographer
Grain is OK for me. It cannot be judged by web previews, but I have 8x11" prints from it, and they just fine.
here is large size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22919025@N05/2222996674/sizes/l/
imush, yours is probably incorrectly developed - there is shouldn't be grain like this.
I have many prints from Neopan 1600 and grain is very smooth. I didn't develop it myself, it was processed in the lab,
and I can't say which developer was used. Probably, D-76 (afaik most commercial labs use it )
Try to use Microphene and process it as 3200 - it will increase contrast for sure
here is large size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22919025@N05/2222996674/sizes/l/
imush, yours is probably incorrectly developed - there is shouldn't be grain like this.
I have many prints from Neopan 1600 and grain is very smooth. I didn't develop it myself, it was processed in the lab,
and I can't say which developer was used. Probably, D-76 (afaik most commercial labs use it )
Try to use Microphene and process it as 3200 - it will increase contrast for sure
Last edited:
imush
Well-known
Suppose I overdeveloped a bit; negatives are thicker than they should be.
But it seems that I get this hazy look with other films too. Here is APX100 in Rodinal:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0003.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0010.jpeg
or Tri-X in same Rodinal:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/rapoport/tx1004.jpeg
Perhaps I am not fixing correctly? I have the "rapid fixer" from Adorama which is advertised to fix film in 1 minute. I fix for a bit more than 1 minute.
But it seems that I get this hazy look with other films too. Here is APX100 in Rodinal:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0003.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0010.jpeg
or Tri-X in same Rodinal:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/rapoport/tx1004.jpeg
Perhaps I am not fixing correctly? I have the "rapid fixer" from Adorama which is advertised to fix film in 1 minute. I fix for a bit more than 1 minute.
imush
Well-known
I started a new thread since it seems that my problem is not Neopan-specific.
minoltist7
pussy photographer
imush said:
most fixers work for 2-5 minutes.
longer fixing do not deteriorate quiality, so I usually fix for 4-5 min for sure